IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

O.D.’s Plantation, Inc., :

:

Appellant :

: No. 1151 C.D. 2017

v. : Submitted: August 3, 2018

: 

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE COLINS FILED: December 28, 2018

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Dauphin County (trial court) denying the appeal of O.D.’s Plantation, Inc. (Licensee) 

from a decision of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) refusing 

Licensee’s renewal application for Restaurant Liquor License No. R-17606 for its

bar located at 1601 Sycamore Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (the Licensed 

Premises). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court. 

When Licensee sought renewal of its liquor license in 2014, the PLCB’s 

Bureau of Licensing (Bureau) granted the renewal, but notified Licensee that it was 

concerned about incidents involving the Licensed Premises. (Trial Court Op. at 2; 

Bureau Ex. 5, Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 290a-291a.) The Bureau advised 

Licensee:
2

However, the decision to renew your license does not diminish 

the serious nature of the allegations of fights, assaults, public 

drunkenness, drugs and disorderly operations reported by the 

Harrisburg Police Department during the time period March 

2012 to present.

This letter serves as a warning that you, as a licensee, must take 

affirmative steps to prevent violations of the Liquor Code and/or 

prevent employees and patrons from engaging in illegal activities 

in and around your premises through increased cooperation with 

the Harrisburg Police Department and the Bureau of Liquor 

Control Enforcement of the Pennsylvania State Police in order to 

retain your licensing privilege. Failure to do so could result in 

further action against your licensed business.

(Bureau Ex. 5, R.R. at 290a.) 

Licensee filed a renewal application with the PLCB for its restaurant 

liquor license for the renewal period from March 1, 2016 through February 28, 2018. 

On February 19, 2016, the Bureau timely notified Licensee that it objected to the 

renewal based on Licensee’s history of nine adjudicated citations for violation of the 

Liquor Code,1five incidents involving police action at or near the Licensed Premises 

between March 2014 and February 2016 that included “drugs, weapons, minors, and 

disorderly operations,” and on the grounds that Licensee’s manager and one of its

officers were no longer reputable. (Bureau Ex. 2, R.R. at 281a-282a.) On April 28, 

2016, the Bureau sent Licensee amended objections to the renewal stating the same 

objections as the February 19, 2016 notification, describing the incidents involving

police action as six incidents between March 2014 and April 2016 that included

“drugs, weapons, minors, disorderly operations and a shooting,” and stating 

additional objections that Licensee had failed to report a change in officers within 

15 days in violation of PLCB regulation 40 Pa. Code § 5.91 and that Licensee and 

 

1 Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. §§ 1-101 – 10-1001.
3

its listed officers were not the only entities with a pecuniary interest in the license. 

(Bureau Ex. 3, R.R. at 284a-286a.) 

A hearing on Licensee’s renewal application was held on August 3, 

2016. At the hearing, the Bureau introduced into evidence nine adjudicated citations

against Licensee between 1998 and 2012 for violation of the Liquor Code and called 

five Harrisburg police officers to testify to incidents at the Licensed Premises on 

October 9, 2014, January 30, 2015, April 2, 2015, September 11, 2015, and April 

10, 2016. Licensee called two witnesses, Lue Ethel Croom, the executrix of the

estate of Licensee’s deceased owner, Otis D. Powell; and John Washington,

Licensee’s manager. 

The nine citations included citations in 2012 and 2011 for failure to 

maintain complete and truthful records; 2011, 2010, and 2004 citations for paying 

for malt or brewed beverages with checks returned for insufficient funds; and 2011, 

2001, and 1998 citations for furnishing alcoholic beverages to minors. (Trial Court 

Op. at 3-5, 12; Bureau Ex. 6) Licensee did not dispute the accuracy of this citation 

history. Ms. Croom testified that she oversees Licensee’s operations and has been 

overseeing its operations since Otis D. Powell suffered a stroke in 2012. (PLCB 

Hearing Testimony (H.T.) at 107-09, 111-12, R.R. at 182a-184a, 186a-187a.) On 

cross-examination, however, she admitted that she had been involved in Licensee’s 

operations, including writing checks and paying its bills, for 30 years. (Id. at 120, 

R.R. at 195a.) The evidence showed that Otis D. Powell was the president and sole 

shareholder of Licensee, that he died on November 13, 2015, two days after Ms. 

Croom filed the renewal application on his behalf under his power of attorney, and 

that Otis D. Powell’s will bequeathed his ownership of Licensee to Ms. Croom. (Id.

at 106-07, R.R. at 181a-182a; Bureau Ex. 1, R.R. at 278a-279a; Bureau Ex. 7, R.R. 
4

at 293a; Licensee Ex. 1, R.R. at 780a; Licensee Ex. 2, R.R. at 781a-786a.) Licensee 

did not report the change in officers or ownership to the PLCB. (Trial Court Op. at 

12; PLCB Op. at 110; R.R. at 921a.) 

The police officers testified that the following incidents occurred at the 

Licensed Premises: 

On October 9, 2014, police officers found bundles of heroin and

cocaine, individual packages of marijuana, and a stolen, loaded handgun in trashcans 

inside the Licensed Premises. (PLCB H.T. at 13-24, R.R. at 88a-99a.) The recording 

from Licensee’s video surveillance cameras showed that four men who were in the 

Licensed Premises threw the drugs and gun in the trashcans just before police 

entered. (Id. at 18-23, 30-33, R.R. at 93a-98a, 105a-108a.) Police also found in the 

jacket of one of these men two ounces of cocaine, an individual package of another 

illegal drug known as MDMA, two digital scales, and $905 in cash, and found three 

individual packages of marijuana and $390 in cash on one of the other three men.

(Id. at 21-24, R.R. at 96a-99a.) 

On January 30, 2015, police arrested a woman who had gone into the 

Licensed Premises and was found, when she left, to have in her possession a crack 

pipe that had been used. (PLCB H.T. at 44-55, R.R. at 119a-130a.)

On April 2, 2015, police officers found an underage individual in the 

Licensed Premises at the bar with a beer and found on him a stolen, loaded handgun, 

a baggie of crack cocaine, and 91 packets of heroin. (PLCB H.T. at 58-65, R.R. at

133a-140a.) 

On September 11, 2015, a shooting occurred outside the Licensed 

Premises. (PLCB H.T. at 68-78, R.R. at 143a-153a.) The incident began as an 

argument inside the Licensed Premises, and the participants began waving guns in
5

the vestibule of the Licensed Premises before leaving the building a minute or less 

before the shooting. (Id. at 73-89, R.R. at 148a-164a.) 

On April 10, 2016, a crowd gathered outside the Licensed Premises at 

closing time and it appeared that a fight was beginning to start, but a police officer 

successfully dispersed the crowd by activating his siren and lights. (PLCB H.T. at 

90-97, R.R. at 165a-172a.)

The officers testified that Ms. Croom cooperated with their 

investigations by providing video recordings of the October 9, 2014 and September 

11, 2015 incidents. (PLCB H.T. at 16-18, 28, 33, 80-81, R.R. at 91a-93a, 103a, 

108a, 155a-156a.) The officer who investigated the September 11, 2015 shooting, 

however, testified that Licensee’s security guard was not fully cooperative with 

police. (Id. at 73-74, R.R. at 148a-149a.)

Ms. Croom and Mr. Washington testified that since 2012 or 2013,

Licensee has had a security guard on duty on Thursdays through Sundays, from 9:00

p.m. to 2:00 a.m., who screens patrons with a metal detecting wand. (PLCB H.T. at

119, 124-25, 133-34, 171-72, 178, R.R. at 194a, 199a-200a, 208a-209a, 246a-247a, 

253a.) Licensee also maintained a list of patrons who were barred from its premises. 

(Id. at 112-13, 132-33, 147-48, R.R. at 187a-188a, 207a-208a, 222a-223a.) Ms. 

Croom was aware of the October 9, 2014, April 2, 2015, and September 11, 2015 

incidents. (Id. at 16-17, 80-81, 123-24, 175-78, 183-84, R.R. at 91a-92a, 155a-156a, 

198a-199a, 250a-253a, 258a-259a.) All three of these incidents occurred after 9:00 

p.m. on a night when security was on duty. (Id. at 13-14, 59, 68, 69, R.R. at 88a89a, 134a, 143a, 144a.) Licensee, however, made no changes to its security 

procedures in response to the incidents. (Id. at 124, 162-65, 169-72, 178-79, 184, 

193-96, R.R. at 199a, 237a-240a, 244a-247a, 253a-254a, 259a, 268a-271a.) 
6

Licensee did not add the patrons arrested in the incidents to its barred patrons list 

until 2016. (Id. at 165-66, 173-74, R.R. at 240a-241a, 248a-249a.) Licensee also 

did not take any disciplinary action against any employees in response to those 

incidents; the security guard who was working when the incidents occurred 

remained employed by Licensee until 2016, when he was discharged for failure to 

show up for work. (Id. at 120-21, 123-24, 157, R.R. at 195a-196a, 198a-199a, 232a.) 

Ms. Croom and Mr. Washington testified that Licensee maintains a logbook of 

incidents, including identification card checks for underage drinking, but did not 

produce this incident log at the renewal hearing. (Id. at 119, 130-32, 159-60, 190-

93, R.R. at 194a, 205a-207a, 234a-235a, 265a-268a.) Mr. Washington admitted that 

although he is Licensee’s manager, he works only day hours and is not regularly 

present at the Licensed Premises in the evening. (Id. at 127-28, 155-56, R.R. at 

202a-203a, 230a-231a.) 

Based upon its review of the record from the hearing, the PLCB refused 

the renewal application. Licensee then appealed to the trial court. A de novo hearing 

was held on June 7, 2017, at which the PLCB moved the administrative record into 

evidence. (Trial Court H.T. at 3, 31, R.R. at 956a, 984a.) At this hearing, Licensee

called only three witnesses: two individuals that it had recently hired who had no 

knowledge of the incidents or of security measures implemented by Licensee prior 

to the 2016 license renewal administrative hearing and the individual who the PLCB 

had alleged was a non-reputable officer of Licensee, who testified that he had not 

been an officer of Licensee for 15 years. (Id. at 29-42, R.R. at 982a-995a.) On July 

18, 2017, the trial court affirmed the PLCB’s order. The trial court concluded that 

the renewal was properly denied based both on Licensee’s citation and violation 

history and on the incidents of illegal activity involving the Licensed Premises and 
7

Licensee’s failure to take corrective measures following these incidents. (Trial 

Court Order at 1-2; Trial Court Op. at 11-13.) The instant appeal followed.2 

Renewal of a liquor license is not automatic. Jim Jay Enterprises, Inc. 

v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 91 A.3d 274, 283 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014); Paey 

Associates, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 78 A.3d 1187, 1197 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2013); First Ward Republican Club of Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Liquor 

Control Board, 11 A.3d 38, 43 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Section 470(a.1) of the Liquor 

Code,3 provides that the PLCB may, in its discretion, refuse to renew a liquor license

for any of the following grounds:

(1) if the licensee, its shareholders, directors, officers, association 

members, servants, agents or employes have violated any of the 

laws of this Commonwealth or any of the regulations of the 

board;

(2) if the licensee, its shareholders, directors, officers, association 

members, servants, agents or employes have one or more 

adjudicated citations under this or any other license issued by the 

board or were involved in a license whose renewal was objected 

to by the Bureau of Licensing under this section; [or]

* * *

(4) due to the manner in which this or another licensed premises 

was operated while the licensee, its shareholders, directors, 

officers, association members, servants, agents, or employes 

were involved with that license. When considering the manner in 

which this or another licensed premises was being operated, the 

board may consider activity that occurred on or about the 

licensed premises or in areas under the licensee’s control if the 

 

2 Our review in a liquor license renewal case is limited to determining whether the trial court’s 

findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence or whether the trial court abused its 

discretion or committed an error of law. St. Nicholas Greek Catholic Russian Aid Society v. 

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 41 A.3d 953, 954 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).

3 Added by the Act of December 21, 1998, P.L. 1202.
8

activity occurred when the premises was open for operation and 

if there was a relationship between the activity outside the 

premises and the manner in which the licensed premises was 

operated. The board may take into consideration whether any 

substantial steps were taken to address the activity occurring on 

or about the premises.

47 P.S. § 4-470(a.1). 

Violations of the Liquor Code or PLCB regulations by the licensee and 

adjudicated citations can be sufficient grounds for denying renewal of a liquor 

license, even if they predate the most recent renewal period. 47 P.S. § 4-470(a.1)(1), 

(2); Jim Jay Enterprises, Inc., 91 A.3d at 283; Paey Associates, Inc., 78 A.3d at 

1200-01; St. Nicholas Greek Catholic Russian Aid Society v. Pennsylvania Liquor 

Control Board, 41 A.3d 953, 959-60 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). A licensee is strictly liable 

for violations of the Liquor Code and PLCB regulations and may lose its license on 

that basis without proof that it had knowledge of the statutory or regulatory 

violations. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. TLK, Inc., 544 A.2d 931, 932-33 

(Pa. 1988); Paey Associates, Inc., 78 A.3d at 1193, 1198. 

Here, the evidence showed and the trial court found that Licensee had 

nine adjudicated citations, including bad check and recordkeeping violations in 

2004, 2010, 2011 and 2012. (Trial Court Op. at 3-5, 12.) Although the last 

adjudicated citation was in 2012, the trial court found that Ms. Croom, who was 

responsible for Licensee’s operations at the time of the renewal application and was 

to become Licensee’s sole owner, was involved in running Licensee and paying its

bills at the time of the bad check and recordkeeping violations, that no substantial 

actions were taken by Licensee to cure those operational deficiencies, and that there 

was a further violation in 2015 of PLCB regulation 40 Pa. Code § 5.91 of failure to 

report the change in Licensee’s officers after Otis D. Powell’s death. (Trial Court 
9

Op. at 12.) These findings and conclusions by trial court are sufficient to sustain the 

denial of Licensee’s renewal application. Paey Associates, Inc., 78 A.3d at 1200-01

(single past adjudicated citation sufficient to support affirmance of non-renewal); 

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Northwoods Tavern, Inc., (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 

1156 C.D. 2012, filed January 8, 2013), slip op. at 2, 10-13 (history of citations 

sufficient for non-renewal even though almost all were before the last renewal 

period).

4

 Indeed, there was also evidence in the record of two other recent or 

continuing violations of the Liquor Code and PLCB regulations, an additional 

incident of furnishing alcohol to a minor in 2015 and continued failure in 2016 to 

report a change in officers with respect to an individual who had been removed as 

an officer in 2002. (PLCB H.T. at 59-62, R.R. at 134a-137a; Trial Court H.T. at 29-

31, R.R. at 982a-984a; PLCB Op. at 113, R.R. at 924a.) 

Licensee does not dispute the adjudicated citations or the 2015 violation 

of PLCB regulation 40 Pa. Code § 5.91, but contends that the trial court erred in 

basing its decision on these violations because Licensee allegedly took substantial 

remedial measures. We do not agree. A trial court has discretion to order license 

renewal despite Liquor Code violations and adjudications on the ground that the 

licensee has taken substantial steps to prevent future violations. Goodfellas, Inc. v. 

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 921 A.2d 559, 566 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007); U.S.A. 

Deli, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 909 A.2d 24, 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2006). Licensee, however, did not show that it took steps to remedy the violations 

and conditions at issue. Most of the corrective steps that Licensee asserts that it took 

 

4 Northwoods Tavern, Inc. and Crocodile Rock Corp. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, (Pa. 

Cmwlth., No. 35 C.D. 2013, filed May 12, 2014), and White House Café, Inc. v. Pennsylvania 

Liquor Control Board, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 850 C.D. 2011, filed April 23, 2012), discussed below, 

are unreported decisions. These decisions are therefore not binding precedent, but are considered 

by the Court for their persuasive value. 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a).
10

concern security at the Licensed Premises, not violations of the Liquor Code or the 

conditions on which the citations were based. (Appellant’s Br. at 35-38.) The only 

evidence of remedying the bad check and recordkeeping violations on which the trial 

court based its decision consisted of Ms. Croom’s conclusory testimony that the 

recordkeeping violations have been “rectified” and that there have been no further 

bad checks. (Appellant’s Br. at 38-39; PLCB H.T. at 113-14, R.R. at 188a-189a.) 

The trial court was not required to find that this testimony was credible or that it 

showed that Licensee had taken substantial steps to prevent future violations. 

Moreover, the trial court also found that the incidents of illegal activity 

at the Licensed Premises were sufficient to warrant denial of the license renewal.

(Trial Court Op. at 12-13; Trial Court Order at 2.) The PLCB may refuse to renew 

a license where the licensee knows or should have known of criminal activities at its 

premises and fails to take substantial affirmative steps to prevent such activities. 47 

P.S. § 4-470(a.1)(4); Jim Jay Enterprises, Inc., 91 A.3d at 284; Paey Associates, 

Inc., 78 A.3d at 1198; In re License Renewal Application of Quippan Club, 806 A.2d 

491, 495-47 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). “There is no magic number or type of incident or 

span of time” that is required for the denial of renewal on this basis. Paey Associates, 

Inc., 78 A.3d at 1199. Even a small number of incidents can constitute sufficient 

grounds for refusing renewal of a liquor license if the incidents are serious crimes 

and the licensee has actual knowledge of at least some of the serious incidents. 

Quippan Club, 806 A.2d at 495-47 (six incidents in 20-month period, three of which 

involved fights, were sufficient to deny license renewal); Crocodile Rock Corp. v. 

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 35 C.D. 2013, filed May 12, 

2014), slip op. at 5-7, 17-22 (two assaults involving patrons and one shooting outside 

the premises in a 13-month period); Northwoods Tavern, Inc., slip op. at 3-4, 15-22
11

(two assaults involving patrons, one of which involved a firearm and a knife, and

two drug buys in licensee’s parking lot in an 11-month period, even though the 

licensee did not know of the drug buys); White House Café, Inc. v. Pennsylvania 

Liquor Control Board, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 850 C.D. 2011, filed April 23, 2012), slip 

op. at 3, 12-19 (three assaults involving weapons and serious injury or death in a 

two-year and four-month period). 

Here, the evidence showed that there were five incidents in an 18-

month period after Licensee’s last renewal, and that three of these, the October 9, 

2014, April 2, 2015, and September 11, 2015 incidents, involved serious criminal 

offenses. In two of those incidents, illegal, loaded guns, large quantities of drugs,

and drugs packaged for sale were found on the Licensed Premises. The third serious 

incident was a shooting following an argument between patrons in the Licensed 

Premises and the brandishing of guns inside Licensee’s building. 

Licensee argues that the incidents do not support the refusal of its 

renewal application because there was not a relationship between the incidents and 

the manner in which the Licensed Premises were operated. This argument likewise

fails. Incidents occurring inside the premises or which began inside the premises

that involve the licensee’s patrons are causally linked to the operation of the 

licensee’s business and may be grounds for denying renewal of a liquor license 

without any further showing of a relationship to the licensee’s operations. Paey 

Associates, Inc., 78 A.3d at 1198-1200; St. Nicholas Greek Catholic Russian Aid 

Society, 41 A.3d at 960; In re License Renewal Application of Quippan Club, 806 

A.2d at 496. The October 9, 2014 and April 2, 2015 incidents both occurred inside 

the Licensed Premises. In the October 9, 2014 incident, individuals in the Licensed 

Premises used the premises for disposal of drugs, including cocaine and heroin, and 
12

a loaded, stolen firearm. In the April 2, 2015 incident, a patron brought a baggie of 

crack cocaine, 91 packets of heroin, and a loaded, stolen firearm to the Licensed 

Premises. The September 11, 2015 shooting involved Licensee’s patrons, and 

although it occurred just outside the Licensed Premises, it began as an argument 

between armed patrons inside the Licensed Premises. All of these incidents were 

therefore sufficiently related to the manner in which the Licensed Premises were 

operated to deny liquor license renewal under Section 470(a.1)(4) of the Liquor 

Code.

Licensee also argues that it was not proved that it knew or should have 

known of the illegal activity and that the evidence showed it took substantial 

remedial measures. Both of these arguments are contrary to the record in this case.

There was ample evidence that Licensee had actual knowledge of the October 9, 

2014, April 2, 2015, and September 11, 2015 incidents. Licensee’s witnesses

admitted that Ms. Croom was told of the October 9, 2014 and April 2, 2015 gun and 

drug arrests. (PLCB H.T. at 122-24, 175-78, 183-84, R.R. at 197a-199a, 250a-253a, 

258a-259a.) In addition, the police officers testified that they called Ms. Croom 

concerning the October 9, 2014 and September 11, 2015 incidents, that she provided 

videotape of both of those incidents, that an officer interviewed Licensee’s security 

guard concerning the September 11, 2015 shooting, and that the security guard was 

aware of the shooting. (Id. at 16-17, 73-77, 80-81, R.R. at 91a-92a, 148a-152a, 155a156a.)

The record is equally clear that Licensee failed to take timely corrective 

measures in response to these incidents. The remedial security measures that 

Licensee contends that it undertook to prevent illegal activities by patrons consisted

of video surveillance cameras, employment of a security guard who screened patrons 
13

with a metal detecting wand, signage, exterior lighting, an incident logbook, and a 

barred patrons list. (Appellant’s Br. at 35-38.) All of these measures predated the 

incidents at issue here. Licensee’s witnesses testified that the video surveillance 

cameras and lighting were installed before 2010, that it had a security guard who 

screened patrons with the wand since 2012 or 2013, that the signs have been posted 

at the Licensed Premises since before the October 9, 2014 incident, that the Licensee 

had a barred patrons list since at least 2010, and that the logbook was already in use 

before the October 9, 2014 incident. (PLCB H.T. at 124, 162-65, 169, 175-79, R.R. 

at 199a, 237a-240a, 244a, 250a-254a.) Licensee’s witnesses admitted that Licensee 

made no changes to its security procedures or operations in response to the incidents 

and that no disciplinary action was taken against any employee. (Id. at 122-24, 171-

72, 177, 183-84, 193-96, R.R. at 197a-199a, 246a-247a, 252a, 258a-259a, 268a271a.) Indeed, Licensee did not even add the names of the individuals who were 

arrested to its barred patrons list until 2016, after the Bureau objected to the license 

renewal. (Id. at 165-66, 173-74, R.R. at 240a-241a, 248a-249a.) The trial court’s 

determination that Licensee took no substantial affirmative steps to prevent future 

illegal activity is therefore supported by the evidence. 

We find no abuse of the discretion of the trial court in upholding the

PLCB’s denial of renewal here and no error of law or lack of support for its findings. 

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.

______________________________________

JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

O.D.’s Plantation, Inc., :

:

Appellant :

: No. 1151 C.D. 2017

v. :

: 

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 28th day of December, 2018, the order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Dauphin County in the above matter is AFFIRMED. 

______________________________________

JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge